Author Topic: 2017 NFL thread v. Patriots Dynasty  (Read 209268 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline jingle.boy

  • I'm so ronery; so sad and ronery
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 44566
  • Gender: Male
  • DTF's resident deceased dictator
Re: 2017 NFL thread v. Patriots Dynasty
« Reply #2205 on: December 18, 2017, 02:37:12 PM »
this TD catch in Super Bowl 12 wouldn't have been ruled a catch today...

:30 second mark....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8ad3pDqFO4



And who even knows if The Immaculate Reception was even a completion!
That's a word salad - and take it from me, I know word salad
I fear for the day when something happens on the right that is SO nuts that even Stadler says "That's crazy".
Quote from: Puppies_On_Acid
Remember the mark of a great vocalist is if TAC hates them with a special passion

Offline El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 30572
  • Bad Craziness
Re: 2017 NFL thread v. Patriots Dynasty
« Reply #2206 on: December 18, 2017, 03:22:10 PM »
this TD catch in Super Bowl 12 wouldn't have been ruled a catch today...

:30 second mark....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8ad3pDqFO4
Nope. Not a catch today. And how bout that pass from The House. That was pretty slick. I remember the day, but not the game. We were outside playing football ourselves. Great weather.

Like I said before, the genie is out of the bottle. If we're going to subject completions to the scrutiny of instant replay we need to have clear definitions of what a catch is. Sadly it's gotten too convoluted now, but that's the way things go when you have to define things where people depend on the outcome. Just ask a lawyer. Christ, Moses showed up with 10 simple rules, and over time they've been parsed and nuanced to such a degree that now we just make them up as we go. Same way the Constitution has evolved into 54 freaking books of law.

In this case, contrary to Jingle, I think control is something that actually is pretty clearly understood and recognized. "A football move" is a subjective, man-made construct. Controlling the ball is pretty straightforward.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline pg1067

  • Posts: 12440
  • Gender: Male
Re: 2017 NFL thread v. Patriots Dynasty
« Reply #2207 on: December 18, 2017, 04:13:11 PM »
I'm looking for someone to explain HOW he lost control of the ball. . . .  Someone please explain how he lost control of the ball.

Kinda hard to do without watching a replay at the same time, but when the ball hit the ground while in the receiver's hands, it came loose.  It's pretty evident from watching replays, and if you were to watch a recording of the actual broadcast, you can hear the moment when the color commentator (Romo?) realized why the review was taking so long.  They broadcasters initially thought they were confirming that the ball had crossed the goal line before the defender touched the receiver.  There is a moment where the commentator says, "OOHHH!"  Hitting the ground caused the receiver to lose control, which makes it an incomplete pass.


Well...option #3 was far superior to options 1 and 2.  The interception happened on third down.  If Ben had spiked the ball, the only sane option on fourth down would have been to kick a field goal and tie the game, not run a run or pass play that could easily have resulted in the Steelers not scoring and turning over the ball on downs.  Spiking the ball and kicking a field goal was the safe way to go.  Trying a pass was not a terrible idea, but they had to run a play that either scored or resulted in an incomplete pass, and the "fake spike" crossing route was a terrible call.  According to Ben's story, he was yelling "clock it," but he heard in his helmet speaker that the sideline was telling him not to do so.  Rodney Harrison called BS on that explanation, so who knows.

Of course, Derek Carr decided to outdo Ben for "dumb play at the end of the game" honors.  Any time the Raiders lose, it's a good thing.

Kicking the field goal and heading to OT seems like a better option in hindsight, doesn't it?

Honestly, I'd say no.  There were two basic options:  (1) spike the ball and kick a field goal; or (2) run a play and try to score a touchdown and then kick a field goal if it doesn't work.  Obviously, the spike and kick option is the safer option, but that doesn't necessarily make it the better option, and running a play isn't necessarily a bad option solely because, in this particular instance, it resulted in an interception.

This reminds me of the end of Super Bowl 36.  The Patriots got the ball on their own 17 with 1:21 remaining, and I always remember John Madden yelling about how the Patriots should just run out the clock and play for overtime because that was the "safe" thing to do.  I remember thinking at the time that it was a stupid idea to leave it up to a coin toss whether the #1 offense in football would have a chance to move the ball 50 yards to set up a game winning field goal.

In the case of yesterday's game, no one would have faulted the Steelers for going with the spike and kick option.  However, there was nothing inherently wrong with trying an intelligent pass play, but the play they ran was designed for failure.  The Patriots didn't fall for the "fake spike," and none of the other Pittsburgh receivers ran routes, so the guy who was the intended target was by himself in a sea of Patriots defenders.  Whether it was Ben's fault or the coach's fault or some combination of the two is beside the point as far as I'm concerned.
« Last Edit: December 18, 2017, 04:23:17 PM by pg1067 »
"There's a bass solo in a song called Metropolis where I do a bass solo."  John Myung

Offline pg1067

  • Posts: 12440
  • Gender: Male
Re: 2017 NFL thread v. Patriots Dynasty
« Reply #2208 on: December 18, 2017, 04:22:12 PM »
this TD catch in Super Bowl 12 wouldn't have been ruled a catch today...

:30 second mark....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8ad3pDqFO4

Why you gotta bring that pain back?  That catch made 10-year old me very sad....   :sad:


He clearly did not have control when he fell all the way to the ground. However, his knee was clearly down well before that and he had control at that point. I think 95% of the time that's called a non-catch in today's league, but I think you can make compelling case for why it should have been a catch.

His knee being down was irrelevant since he had not been contacted by a defender.  I agree with El Barto that this wouldn't have been called a catch any time in at least the last 15 years.
"There's a bass solo in a song called Metropolis where I do a bass solo."  John Myung

Offline El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 30572
  • Bad Craziness
Re: 2017 NFL thread v. Patriots Dynasty
« Reply #2209 on: December 18, 2017, 04:57:52 PM »
Honestly, I'd say no.  There were two basic options:  (1) spike the ball and kick a field goal; or (2) run a play and try to score a touchdown and then kick a field goal if it doesn't work.  Obviously, the spike and kick option is the safer option, but that doesn't necessarily make it the better option, and running a play isn't necessarily a bad option solely because, in this particular instance, it resulted in an interception.

This reminds me of the end of Super Bowl 36.  The Patriots got the ball on their own 17 with 1:21 remaining, and I always remember John Madden yelling about how the Patriots should just run out the clock and play for overtime because that was the "safe" thing to do.  I remember thinking at the time that it was a stupid idea to leave it up to a coin toss whether the #1 offense in football would have a chance to move the ball 50 yards to set up a game winning field goal.

In the case of yesterday's game, no one would have faulted the Steelers for going with the spike and kick option.  However, there was nothing inherently wrong with trying an intelligent pass play, but the play they ran was designed for failure.  The Patriots didn't fall for the "fake spike," and none of the other Pittsburgh receivers ran routes, so the guy who was the intended target was by himself in a sea of Patriots defenders.  Whether it was Ben's fault or the coach's fault or some combination of the two is beside the point as far as I'm concerned.
I don't think Ben's play was dumb, but it was definitely a mistake. When he didn't have a receiver open he should have thrown it to the guy in 113, Row X, Seat 37. A fake spike might well have worked, though probably not against NE, and cost only a couple of seconds to try. Good idea poorly executed, I think.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline KevShmev

  • EZBoard Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 41963
  • Gender: Male
Re: 2017 NFL thread v. Patriots Dynasty
« Reply #2210 on: December 18, 2017, 05:01:59 PM »
The play on 2nd down was just as bad. Why are you throwing it to a guy running a short cross, who has no shot of scoring or getting out of bounds?  That led to the hurried 3rd down and then Roethlisberger panicking and making the bonehead play of the year.

Offline King Postwhore

  • Couch Potato
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 59297
  • Gender: Male
  • Take that Beethoven, you deaf bastard!!
Re: 2017 NFL thread v. Patriots Dynasty
« Reply #2211 on: December 18, 2017, 05:03:55 PM »
He clearly did not have control when he fell all the way to the ground. However, his knee was clearly down well before that and he had control at that point. I think 95% of the time that's called a non-catch in today's league, but I think you can make compelling case for why it should have been a catch.

His knee was down but was untouched. Therefore, still in play.
I don't like country music, but I don't mean to denigrate those who do. And for the people who like country music, denigrate means 'put down'.” - Bob Newhart
So wait, we're spelling it wrong and king is spelling it right? What is going on here? :lol -- BlobVanDam
"Oh, I am definitely a jackass!" - TAC

Offline KevShmev

  • EZBoard Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 41963
  • Gender: Male
Re: 2017 NFL thread v. Patriots Dynasty
« Reply #2212 on: December 18, 2017, 05:06:17 PM »
Oh, and how did it take Romo and Nantz like two minutes to realize that if the play was a catch or not was what was being reviewed?  Remember the Dez Bryant play?  Romo was the QB on that damn play!!  He should recognized that right away as a similar type play.

Offline TAC

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 74107
  • Gender: Male
  • Arthritic Metal Horns
Re: 2017 NFL thread v. Patriots Dynasty
« Reply #2213 on: December 18, 2017, 06:16:03 PM »
He clearly did not have control when he fell all the way to the ground. However, his knee was clearly down well before that and he had control at that point. I think 95% of the time that's called a non-catch in today's league, but I think you can make compelling case for why it should have been a catch.

His knee was down but was untouched. Therefore, still in play.

Right, and it didn't matter that his knee was down. That doesn't end the play. His body has to come down with control.
would have thought the same thing but seeing the OP was TAC i immediately thought Maiden or DT related
Winger Theater Forums........or WTF.  ;D
TAC got a higher score than me in the electronic round? Honestly, can I just drop out now? :lol

Offline pg1067

  • Posts: 12440
  • Gender: Male
Re: 2017 NFL thread v. Patriots Dynasty
« Reply #2214 on: December 18, 2017, 06:24:30 PM »
I don't think Ben's play was dumb, but it was definitely a mistake. When he didn't have a receiver open he should have thrown it to the guy in 113, Row X, Seat 37. A fake spike might well have worked, though probably not against NE, and cost only a couple of seconds to try. Good idea poorly executed, I think.

Running a play was a good (or not a bad) idea, but I'd say they play they ran was ill-conceived AND poorly executed.
"There's a bass solo in a song called Metropolis where I do a bass solo."  John Myung

Offline Cool Chris

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13559
  • Gender: Male
Re: 2017 NFL thread v. Patriots Dynasty
« Reply #2215 on: December 18, 2017, 07:00:18 PM »
Living in Seattle, I sure can't relate to poor play calling and execution at the goal line in the last minute of an important game. 
"Nostalgia is just the ability to forget the things that sucked" - Nelson DeMille, 'Up Country'

Offline King Postwhore

  • Couch Potato
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 59297
  • Gender: Male
  • Take that Beethoven, you deaf bastard!!
Re: 2017 NFL thread v. Patriots Dynasty
« Reply #2216 on: December 18, 2017, 07:03:13 PM »
And with that Chris.

I don't like country music, but I don't mean to denigrate those who do. And for the people who like country music, denigrate means 'put down'.” - Bob Newhart
So wait, we're spelling it wrong and king is spelling it right? What is going on here? :lol -- BlobVanDam
"Oh, I am definitely a jackass!" - TAC

Offline TAC

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 74107
  • Gender: Male
  • Arthritic Metal Horns
Re: 2017 NFL thread v. Patriots Dynasty
« Reply #2217 on: December 18, 2017, 07:04:33 PM »
:clap: :clap: :clap:

F'n awesome.
would have thought the same thing but seeing the OP was TAC i immediately thought Maiden or DT related
Winger Theater Forums........or WTF.  ;D
TAC got a higher score than me in the electronic round? Honestly, can I just drop out now? :lol

Offline KevShmev

  • EZBoard Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 41963
  • Gender: Male
Re: 2017 NFL thread v. Patriots Dynasty
« Reply #2218 on: December 18, 2017, 07:19:26 PM »

Offline King Postwhore

  • Couch Potato
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 59297
  • Gender: Male
  • Take that Beethoven, you deaf bastard!!
Re: 2017 NFL thread v. Patriots Dynasty
« Reply #2219 on: December 18, 2017, 07:20:48 PM »
Kev, Kev.  The 2 rings after have dulled that pain. :lol
I don't like country music, but I don't mean to denigrate those who do. And for the people who like country music, denigrate means 'put down'.” - Bob Newhart
So wait, we're spelling it wrong and king is spelling it right? What is going on here? :lol -- BlobVanDam
"Oh, I am definitely a jackass!" - TAC

Offline TAC

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 74107
  • Gender: Male
  • Arthritic Metal Horns
Re: 2017 NFL thread v. Patriots Dynasty
« Reply #2220 on: December 18, 2017, 07:22:47 PM »
I still cannot believe that play was made. How Seymour didn't pull Eli down, I'll never know.
would have thought the same thing but seeing the OP was TAC i immediately thought Maiden or DT related
Winger Theater Forums........or WTF.  ;D
TAC got a higher score than me in the electronic round? Honestly, can I just drop out now? :lol

Offline lordxizor

  • EZBoard Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 5313
  • Gender: Male
  • and that is the truth.
Re: 2017 NFL thread v. Patriots Dynasty
« Reply #2221 on: December 18, 2017, 07:49:36 PM »
He clearly did not have control when he fell all the way to the ground. However, his knee was clearly down well before that and he had control at that point. I think 95% of the time that's called a non-catch in today's league, but I think you can make compelling case for why it should have been a catch.

His knee was down but was untouched. Therefore, still in play.
I didn't see that whole play, so I missed that. In that case it was clearly not a catch.

Offline KevShmev

  • EZBoard Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 41963
  • Gender: Male
Re: 2017 NFL thread v. Patriots Dynasty
« Reply #2222 on: December 18, 2017, 07:52:55 PM »
The fact that there has been so much debate about this just shows how awful the rule is.  The NFL is basically telling us not to believe what our eyes tell us.  That was a catch in the NFL for decades until they decided to make that stupid rule.

The even dumber rule is this fumbling forward out of the end zone makes it a touchback and you lose possession.  That is beyond retarded.

Offline King Postwhore

  • Couch Potato
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 59297
  • Gender: Male
  • Take that Beethoven, you deaf bastard!!
Re: 2017 NFL thread v. Patriots Dynasty
« Reply #2223 on: December 18, 2017, 08:04:18 PM »
Let me add that all the rules piled on with all these new rules makes it so much harder for the referees to actually call a game.
I don't like country music, but I don't mean to denigrate those who do. And for the people who like country music, denigrate means 'put down'.” - Bob Newhart
So wait, we're spelling it wrong and king is spelling it right? What is going on here? :lol -- BlobVanDam
"Oh, I am definitely a jackass!" - TAC

Offline jingle.boy

  • I'm so ronery; so sad and ronery
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 44566
  • Gender: Male
  • DTF's resident deceased dictator
Re: 2017 NFL thread v. Patriots Dynasty
« Reply #2224 on: December 18, 2017, 09:51:46 PM »
Incredibly, tonight's game was a very good one.  Atlanta should've cake-walked all over the Bucs, especially with the number of players in triage - before and during the game.  The Falcon's D did not impress at all.
That's a word salad - and take it from me, I know word salad
I fear for the day when something happens on the right that is SO nuts that even Stadler says "That's crazy".
Quote from: Puppies_On_Acid
Remember the mark of a great vocalist is if TAC hates them with a special passion

Offline bosk1

  • King of Misdirection
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 12791
  • Bow down to Boskaryus
Re: 2017 NFL thread v. Patriots Dynasty
« Reply #2225 on: December 19, 2017, 09:55:46 AM »
If we want to bitch about the rule then I'll join in. I don't like catches being broken down into 12 components that require German scientists to measure. However, based on the rule now it was very definitely incomplete, and Blandino and Periera have both been pretty clear on why the call was correct. He can't be down until he has possession. He can't have possession until he completes the catch.

He completed the catch when he caught it and secured it with both hands.  He fully had control of the ball with both hands.  The fact that he bobbled it AFTER HE CROSSED THE GOAL LINE AND WAS DOWN is bizarre as the determining factor of whether he had "control."  Thus, he had possession.  Following that, he was down by knee and elbow, with the ball extended over the goal line.  Again, the NFL turned it into a false construction where a catch somehow isn't a catch.  I think Jingle's interpretation of the rule is the correct one.  But the problem is, the rule IS subject to interpretation, and I think the interpretation is as wrong as wrong can be.

Jimmy G and Gould FTW!

I know it doesn't matter for shit this year, but I'm ready for next season!

Sure it matters.  They don't have to be playoff bound for it to matter.  I am really happy with how they are playing with G in at QB.  My initial thoughts when they picked him up were that I did NOT want him playing this year because he would get crushed behind their nonexistent O line, nonexistent running game to take pressure off him, and nonexistent receiver corps to help him out.  I have been pleasantly surprised at how he has elevated and been able to work with all three components. 
"The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

Offline Nick

  • A doctor.
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 20050
  • Gender: Male
  • But not the medical kind.
Re: 2017 NFL thread v. Patriots Dynasty
« Reply #2226 on: December 19, 2017, 10:22:37 AM »
If we want to bitch about the rule then I'll join in. I don't like catches being broken down into 12 components that require German scientists to measure. However, based on the rule now it was very definitely incomplete, and Blandino and Periera have both been pretty clear on why the call was correct. He can't be down until he has possession. He can't have possession until he completes the catch.

He completed the catch when he caught it and secured it with both hands.  He fully had control of the ball with both hands.  The fact that he bobbled it AFTER HE CROSSED THE GOAL LINE AND WAS DOWN is bizarre as the determining factor of whether he had "control."  Thus, he had possession.  Following that, he was down by knee and elbow, with the ball extended over the goal line.  Again, the NFL turned it into a false construction where a catch somehow isn't a catch.  I think Jingle's interpretation of the rule is the correct one.  But the problem is, the rule IS subject to interpretation, and I think the interpretation is as wrong as wrong can be.

Jimmy G and Gould FTW!

I know it doesn't matter for shit this year, but I'm ready for next season!

Sure it matters.  They don't have to be playoff bound for it to matter.  I am really happy with how they are playing with G in at QB.  My initial thoughts when they picked him up were that I did NOT want him playing this year because he would get crushed behind their nonexistent O line, nonexistent running game to take pressure off him, and nonexistent receiver corps to help him out.  I have been pleasantly surprised at how he has elevated and been able to work with all three components. 

I know the following won't happen with a professional WR, but for comparison sake. Let's say a WR is in the middle of the endzone, jumps up and fully extends to make the catch. Has both hands on the ball, is clearly in the endzone, but then as he lands the jolt causes him to drop the ball. Is that a touchdown? I'd say clearly not since you need to have a catch to have a touchdown, and that's not a catch. Similar to this situation, there needs to be a completion to have a touchdown and I don't think there was a completion.

As for Jimmy G, I hear you, and I do fear that something might happen to him this year yet, but wins aside he has given the team hope, and he is highlighting exactly what problems were because of non-stellar QBs, and what problems now still exist. Plenty of money to work with so it really helps in knowing what to address going into next season.
For the best online progressive radio: ProgRock.com
For the best in progressive news, reviews, and interviews: SonicPerspectives.com
For a trove of older podcasts and interviews: WPaPU.com
Awesome Majesty Pendant Club: Member #1

Offline TAC

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 74107
  • Gender: Male
  • Arthritic Metal Horns
Re: 2017 NFL thread v. Patriots Dynasty
« Reply #2227 on: December 19, 2017, 10:27:38 AM »
He completed the catch when he caught it and secured it with both hands.  He fully had control of the ball with both hands.  The fact that he bobbled it AFTER HE CROSSED THE GOAL LINE AND WAS DOWN is bizarre as the determining factor of whether he had "control."  Thus, he had possession.  Following that, he was down by knee and elbow, with the ball extended over the goal line.   

But he caught the ball in the air and when he hit the ground it came loose. The knee down first and the goal line are irrelevant because the catch is incomplete. If this play was at the 50, there'd be no hubbub about it.
would have thought the same thing but seeing the OP was TAC i immediately thought Maiden or DT related
Winger Theater Forums........or WTF.  ;D
TAC got a higher score than me in the electronic round? Honestly, can I just drop out now? :lol

Offline El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 30572
  • Bad Craziness
Re: 2017 NFL thread v. Patriots Dynasty
« Reply #2228 on: December 19, 2017, 10:36:38 AM »
If we want to bitch about the rule then I'll join in. I don't like catches being broken down into 12 components that require German scientists to measure. However, based on the rule now it was very definitely incomplete, and Blandino and Periera have both been pretty clear on why the call was correct. He can't be down until he has possession. He can't have possession until he completes the catch.

He completed the catch when he caught it and secured it with both hands.  He fully had control of the ball with both hands.  The fact that he bobbled it AFTER HE CROSSED THE GOAL LINE AND WAS DOWN is bizarre as the determining factor of whether he had "control."  Thus, he had possession.  Following that, he was down by knee and elbow, with the ball extended over the goal line.  Again, the NFL turned it into a false construction where a catch somehow isn't a catch.  I think Jingle's interpretation of the rule is the correct one.  But the problem is, the rule IS subject to interpretation, and I think the interpretation is as wrong as wrong can be.
The rule isn't that you merely have to secure the ball for the microsecond you're down. The rule is that you have to complete the catch. He did not. He lost control when the ball hit the ground and that's never been a catch. Even in the days before instant replay it wasn't a catch. If it's not a catch then when he crossed the goal line doesn't matter since he never officially had possession.

As I said, we can bitch about the "completing the catch" rule all we want, though I consider it a necessity at this point. I don't see any basis whatsoever to argue about the application of the rule in this instance. Neither do the people who understand the rule better than any of us. 

It amazes me that people can see the ball clearly move around as it hits the ground and think it's a catch. I don't know what sport people have been watching for the last 30 years 'cause it sure ain't fucking football.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline bosk1

  • King of Misdirection
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 12791
  • Bow down to Boskaryus
Re: 2017 NFL thread v. Patriots Dynasty
« Reply #2229 on: December 19, 2017, 10:45:29 AM »
He completed the catch when he caught it and secured it with both hands.  He fully had control of the ball with both hands.  The fact that he bobbled it AFTER HE CROSSED THE GOAL LINE AND WAS DOWN is bizarre as the determining factor of whether he had "control."  Thus, he had possession.  Following that, he was down by knee and elbow, with the ball extended over the goal line.   

But he caught the ball in the air and when he hit the ground it came loose. The knee down first and the goal line are irrelevant because the catch is incomplete. If this play was at the 50, there'd be no hubbub about it.

Well, no.  The first thing that hit the ground were his knee and elbow.  So when "he hit the ground," it did NOT come loose.  It came loose after he had already hit the ground, but his hand subsequently hit the ground as well.

It amazes me that people can see the ball clearly move around as it hits the ground and think it's a catch.

I'm not sure why it "amazes" you.  In any other context, where a receiver controls the ball, and THEN the ball "clearly moves" when he hits the ground, the movement is irrelevant (and it if moves out of his hands, it is a fumble).  I get that you disagree.  But I find your incredulity a bit disingenuous.

I know the following won't happen with a professional WR, but for comparison sake. Let's say a WR is in the middle of the endzone, jumps up and fully extends to make the catch. Has both hands on the ball, is clearly in the endzone, but then as he lands the jolt causes him to drop the ball. Is that a touchdown? I'd say clearly not since you need to have a catch to have a touchdown, and that's not a catch. Similar to this situation, there needs to be a completion to have a touchdown and I don't think there was a completion. 

Depends on how he lands.  If the first thing to land in the endzone is his hands and the ball jars loose on impact, it's hard to argue that he had control.  If he lands similar to how this one went, where his knee and elbow touch down, he has control, and only subsequently loses it when the bottom hand hits.  That seems like "control" to me.  But what do I know?  I think there is a lot of subjectivity to "control" and the way it is being interpreted.  The NFL is urging an interpretation that seems wrong.  And that's fine.  But they are also acting like it is objective, which it isn't.  But I'm not going to continue to argue that one is "right."  I see it differently.  But it is what it is.

As for Jimmy G, I hear you, and I do fear that something might happen to him this year yet, but wins aside he has given the team hope, and he is highlighting exactly what problems were because of non-stellar QBs, and what problems now still exist. Plenty of money to work with so it really helps in knowing what to address going into next season.

I hope nothing happens to him.  I think he has earned some serious contract money, but it will be interesting to see whether they give it to him right away or franchise him to spend money on some other pieces.  It would be really cool if, similar to Stef and Durant on the Warriors, they talk to him and he agrees to take a franchise tag and less money this year so they can spend on getting lots of other pieces in place, and give him the big contract a year or two down the road.  I thought Beathard was pretty good too.  So with Jimmy G as starter and Beathard as backup, I actually think they are pretty set at QB and don't need to worry about picking somebody up in the draft.  I think they should spend on O line and defense, and maybe pick up a decent 2nd or 3rd round RB of the future too if they can.
"The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

Offline King Postwhore

  • Couch Potato
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 59297
  • Gender: Male
  • Take that Beethoven, you deaf bastard!!
Re: 2017 NFL thread v. Patriots Dynasty
« Reply #2230 on: December 19, 2017, 10:56:42 AM »
He's still not down when his knee and elbow hit the ground because he was not touched by a defensive player.

Also when he dove for the catch and while diving he lunged forward does not constitute a football move.   A move is a defined step after securing the ball which he did not do.
I don't like country music, but I don't mean to denigrate those who do. And for the people who like country music, denigrate means 'put down'.” - Bob Newhart
So wait, we're spelling it wrong and king is spelling it right? What is going on here? :lol -- BlobVanDam
"Oh, I am definitely a jackass!" - TAC

Offline TAC

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 74107
  • Gender: Male
  • Arthritic Metal Horns
Re: 2017 NFL thread v. Patriots Dynasty
« Reply #2231 on: December 19, 2017, 11:02:02 AM »


But he caught the ball in the air and when he hit the ground it came loose. The knee down first and the goal line are irrelevant because the catch is incomplete. If this play was at the 50, there'd be no hubbub about it.

Well, no.  The first thing that hit the ground were his knee and elbow.  So when "he hit the ground," it did NOT come loose.  It came loose after he had already hit the ground, but his hand subsequently hit the ground as well.


Just because his knee was the first body part to touch the ground, a catch is only a catch when it is secured by receiver through the full force of him falling. This is different than a runner whose knee touches the ground. He caught the ball in the air and lost control when he hit the ground. It's not like he caught it on the 5 and took 2 or 3 steps with it. The fact is, while in the air he does appear to have caught the ball, but when he ultimately comes down, he loses it. He cannot lose it when he hits the ground. If he hangs onto to the ball, it's a completion. If he does not, it's an incompletion. The fact that his first body part that touches the ground is his knee is irrelevant. remember, he's a receiver, not a runner.
would have thought the same thing but seeing the OP was TAC i immediately thought Maiden or DT related
Winger Theater Forums........or WTF.  ;D
TAC got a higher score than me in the electronic round? Honestly, can I just drop out now? :lol

Offline bosk1

  • King of Misdirection
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 12791
  • Bow down to Boskaryus
Re: 2017 NFL thread v. Patriots Dynasty
« Reply #2232 on: December 19, 2017, 11:04:32 AM »
He's still not down when his knee and elbow hit the ground because he was not touched by a defensive player.

Okay, well even though I said I was done and wasn't going to debate...  :lol  ...the difference here is, when a player has the ball across the plane of the end zone, the play stops whether he is touched down or not.  That's different than in the field of play.  So I don't feel like the fact that he was touched should have any bearing on the discussion.  I get Barto's (and the NFL's) interpretation of the rule, even if I disagree with it.  But, respectfully, him not being touched has nothing to do with it either way. 
"The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

Offline TAC

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 74107
  • Gender: Male
  • Arthritic Metal Horns
Re: 2017 NFL thread v. Patriots Dynasty
« Reply #2233 on: December 19, 2017, 11:05:44 AM »
He's still not down when his knee and elbow hit the ground because he was not touched by a defensive player.

Okay, well even though I said I was done and wasn't going to debate...  :lol  ...the difference here is, when a player has the ball across the plane of the end zone, the play stops whether he is touched down or not.  That's different than in the field of play.  So I don't feel like the fact that he was touched should have any bearing on the discussion.  I get Barto's (and the NFL's) interpretation of the rule, even if I disagree with it.  But, respectfully, him not being touched has nothing to do with it either way.

Him not being touched does NOT have anything to do with it. That is correct.
would have thought the same thing but seeing the OP was TAC i immediately thought Maiden or DT related
Winger Theater Forums........or WTF.  ;D
TAC got a higher score than me in the electronic round? Honestly, can I just drop out now? :lol

Offline Grappler

  • Posts: 3415
  • Gender: Male
  • Victory, Illinois Varsity
Re: 2017 NFL thread v. Patriots Dynasty
« Reply #2234 on: December 19, 2017, 11:06:22 AM »
Just because his knee was the first body part to touch the ground, a catch is only a catch when it is secured by receiver through the full force of him falling. This is different than a runner whose knee touches the ground. He caught the ball in the air and lost control when he hit the ground. It's not like he caught it on the 5 and took 2 or 3 steps with it. The fact is, while in the air he does appear to have caught the ball, but when he ultimately comes down, he loses it. He cannot lose it when he hits the ground. If he hangs onto to the ball, it's a completion. If he does not, it's an incompletion. The fact that his first body part that touches the ground is his knee is irrelevant. remember, he's a receiver, not a runner.

Exactly.  A runner already has control of the ball, so if they break the plane of the goal line, it's a touchdown.  Catching a thrown ball is completely different, as the rule states that control has to be kept until the receiver follows through to the ground.  The play doesn't stop with a knee or a lunge over the goal line.  That's where the confusion is, since we're all conditioned to see a ball break the plane or someone's knee to go down and believe that the play is over.

Offline Nick

  • A doctor.
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 20050
  • Gender: Male
  • But not the medical kind.
Re: 2017 NFL thread v. Patriots Dynasty
« Reply #2235 on: December 19, 2017, 11:13:27 AM »
I hope nothing happens to him.  I think he has earned some serious contract money, but it will be interesting to see whether they give it to him right away or franchise him to spend money on some other pieces.  It would be really cool if, similar to Stef and Durant on the Warriors, they talk to him and he agrees to take a franchise tag and less money this year so they can spend on getting lots of other pieces in place, and give him the big contract a year or two down the road.  I thought Beathard was pretty good too.  So with Jimmy G as starter and Beathard as backup, I actually think they are pretty set at QB and don't need to worry about picking somebody up in the draft.  I think they should spend on O line and defense, and maybe pick up a decent 2nd or 3rd round RB of the future too if they can.

I think Beathard will be an excellent backup, and agree no need to draft a QB. He was a rookie coming into a broken team, and 90% of QBs are going to falter under those circumstances. If they get pieces in place and something happens after G has already started off a confident season I think he can jump in and do a lot better.

O line is what jumps out to me as well as the most immediate need.
For the best online progressive radio: ProgRock.com
For the best in progressive news, reviews, and interviews: SonicPerspectives.com
For a trove of older podcasts and interviews: WPaPU.com
Awesome Majesty Pendant Club: Member #1

Offline jingle.boy

  • I'm so ronery; so sad and ronery
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 44566
  • Gender: Male
  • DTF's resident deceased dictator
Re: 2017 NFL thread v. Patriots Dynasty
« Reply #2236 on: December 19, 2017, 11:17:51 AM »
He's still not down when his knee and elbow hit the ground because he was not touched by a defensive player.

Okay, well even though I said I was done and wasn't going to debate...  :lol  ...the difference here is, when a player has the ball across the plane of the end zone, the play stops whether he is touched down or not.  That's different than in the field of play.  So I don't feel like the fact that he was touched should have any bearing on the discussion.  I get Barto's (and the NFL's) interpretation of the rule, even if I disagree with it.  But, respectfully, him not being touched has nothing to do with it either way.

And this is where I think the rule is applied correctly, but they've blown the intent.  He had control; he broke the plane of the goal-line; then the ball rotated in his grip as he hit the ground.  I think there are different rules conflicting with one another, which has led to this badly worded rule that I posted.  I think the rule should account for having control as you cross the goal line.  It doesn't... but that wasn't my final and main argument.  Control was.  I don't see how he lost control of the ball.  I see how the NFL has conditioned us to believe that the rotation was a loss of control, but by my eyes, he never lost control of it.  That's my beef.

They apparently got the ruling right, but I don't believe it is the right call.
That's a word salad - and take it from me, I know word salad
I fear for the day when something happens on the right that is SO nuts that even Stadler says "That's crazy".
Quote from: Puppies_On_Acid
Remember the mark of a great vocalist is if TAC hates them with a special passion

Offline King Postwhore

  • Couch Potato
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 59297
  • Gender: Male
  • Take that Beethoven, you deaf bastard!!
Re: 2017 NFL thread v. Patriots Dynasty
« Reply #2237 on: December 19, 2017, 11:20:41 AM »
He's still not down when his knee and elbow hit the ground because he was not touched by a defensive player.

Okay, well even though I said I was done and wasn't going to debate...  :lol  ...the difference here is, when a player has the ball across the plane of the end zone, the play stops whether he is touched down or not.  That's different than in the field of play.  So I don't feel like the fact that he was touched should have any bearing on the discussion.  I get Barto's (and the NFL's) interpretation of the rule, even if I disagree with it.  But, respectfully, him not being touched has nothing to do with it either way.

Him not being touched does NOT have anything to do with it. That is correct.

Then the knee and elbow to the ground means nothing.  It wasn't that he hit the ground and then reached for the endzone. It was the same motion of him diving for the ball which is not a football move.


BTW bosk1,  I hate instant replay.  The problem is is the NFL has made this rule to be precise in the referees understand the rules and it's just us fans that are confused.
I don't like country music, but I don't mean to denigrate those who do. And for the people who like country music, denigrate means 'put down'.” - Bob Newhart
So wait, we're spelling it wrong and king is spelling it right? What is going on here? :lol -- BlobVanDam
"Oh, I am definitely a jackass!" - TAC

Offline TAC

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 74107
  • Gender: Male
  • Arthritic Metal Horns
Re: 2017 NFL thread v. Patriots Dynasty
« Reply #2238 on: December 19, 2017, 11:22:26 AM »
He's still not down when his knee and elbow hit the ground because he was not touched by a defensive player.

Okay, well even though I said I was done and wasn't going to debate...  :lol  ...the difference here is, when a player has the ball across the plane of the end zone, the play stops whether he is touched down or not.  That's different than in the field of play.  So I don't feel like the fact that he was touched should have any bearing on the discussion.  I get Barto's (and the NFL's) interpretation of the rule, even if I disagree with it.  But, respectfully, him not being touched has nothing to do with it either way.

Him not being touched does NOT have anything to do with it. That is correct.

Then the knee and elbow to the ground means nothing.  It wasn't that he hit the ground and then reached for the endzone. It was the same motion of him diving for the ball which is not a football move.

Right, it means nothing. As a receiver HE has to hit the ground, not simply his knee. It's not the same thing.
would have thought the same thing but seeing the OP was TAC i immediately thought Maiden or DT related
Winger Theater Forums........or WTF.  ;D
TAC got a higher score than me in the electronic round? Honestly, can I just drop out now? :lol

Offline El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 30572
  • Bad Craziness
Re: 2017 NFL thread v. Patriots Dynasty
« Reply #2239 on: December 19, 2017, 11:27:31 AM »
He's still not down when his knee and elbow hit the ground because he was not touched by a defensive player.

Okay, well even though I said I was done and wasn't going to debate...  :lol  ...the difference here is, when a player has the ball across the plane of the end zone, the play stops whether he is touched down or not.  That's different than in the field of play.  So I don't feel like the fact that he was touched should have any bearing on the discussion.  I get Barto's (and the NFL's) interpretation of the rule, even if I disagree with it.  But, respectfully, him not being touched has nothing to do with it either way.

And this is where I think the rule is applied correctly, but they've blown the intent.  He had control; he broke the plane of the goal-line; then the ball rotated in his grip as he hit the ground.  I think there are different rules conflicting with one another, which has led to this badly worded rule that I posted.  I think the rule should account for having control as you cross the goal line.  It doesn't... but that wasn't my final and main argument.  Control was.  I don't see how he lost control of the ball.  I see how the NFL has conditioned us to believe that the rotation was a loss of control, but by my eyes, he never lost control of it.  That's my beef.

They apparently got the ruling right, but I don't believe it is the right call.
If this play had happened at the 50 yard line would it have been a catch?
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson